INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS. XXXxix 
Mauretania was being taken into an entrance on the Mersey, and her stern was in 
a current moving in one direction, and her bow was in an eddy moving in another 
direction. When you stretch over 800 to 900 feet that may easily happen as you 
approach the shore, and it is not a negligible condition at all. You cannot have 
these huge ships, which must be moved very slowly in those conditions, without 
having considerable risk and the need of great caution. And then that is not all— 
you must have in connection with ships of these dimensions the occupancy of a 
great space or the freedom for them to move in a great area which detracts from 
the use by other ships of these areas, and in most harbors of the world that is not 
a negligible quantity. 
Paragraph X. After the words ‘‘extended widely’—On the voyage out to 
Montreal I had the good fortune to travel with one of the great English shipowners, 
interested in all classes of ships. I said to him: “‘ Taking things as they are at 
the present time, what do you consider to be the most useful size of ship; what 
do you think is the upper limit of draught of water that will be commonly adopted?” 
His answer was, “‘ About 7,000 tons dead weight cargo capacity and about 24 feet 
laden draught of water.’”’ From the point of view I have just mentioned, this 
appears to be a reasonable conclusion. 
Paragraph X. After “‘is frequently 4 to 5 feet’ —At the Review at Spithead, 
to which the President referred in his opening address, there were vessels whose 
normal draught of water is given in published official tables as 26 to 27 feet, but 
I personally observed they were drawing 31 feet. 
Some years ago warships of the United States Navy were always designed 
to have relatively shallow draught. Admiral Bowles must have found that restric- 
tion not altogether comfortable; but the condition was imposed upon him as 
essential to the service. In modern warships of the United States Navy the 
draught has been very much increased, and no doubt there is good reason for it. 
If we could hear why the change has been made, it would be very interesting. 
There are some harbors which have been primarily constructed to serve as 
Naval bases into which many recently built British warships cannot go at all 
when deep-laden; and there are ports of these harbors. There are places where 
the ships cannot take shelter, although they were constructed at enormous cost 
for the purpose of sheltering warships. That is not a satisfactory condition of 
affairs and has resulted from increase in draught of the modern ships. ‘This 
question of warship construction must be considered from the standpoint of the 
harbor engineer and owner—the places of shelter and supply—as well as from 
the shipowner’s standpoint. These considerations will have marked effect when- 
ever war happens, which, I pray God most earnestly may not occur. Ships of 
great draught will necessarily have their field of operations restricted and their 
ports of shelter and repair will be few. It is impossible that it can be otherwise, 
and the restriction may have serious consequences. 
Paragraph XI. After ‘‘due to large size in passenger steamships’’—The fact 
is as stated, although it does not seem very reasonable; there is a great attraction 
